Proposed patch: smbtorture4: RAW-OPLOCK's CHECK_VAL

[Zack Kirsch]

Metze - that was my thought exactly.

Volker - I believe the "Unknown error/failure" occurs because the return was set to False, but there was no torture_result() call.  With this patch, all of the CHECK_VAL() errors are printed via torture_comment(), so there isn't much need to print the "Unknown error/failure" or anything else in its place.

Zack

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan (metze) Metzmacher [mailto:metze at samba.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 2:11 AM
> To: Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
> Cc: Zack Kirsch; jelmer at samba.org; samba-technical at samba.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed patch: smbtorture4: RAW-OPLOCK's CHECK_VAL
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Volker Lendecke schrieb:
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 02:29:39PM -0700, Zack Kirsch wrote:
> >> I've been playing around with smbtorture and have noticed a bit of
> an
> >> oddity in the RAW-OPLOCK test suite.  Specifically, if you have two
> >> errors in a test (one of them caught by CHECK_VAL), the error from
> >> CHECK_VAL will be overwritten! I propose the following patch, where
> we
> >> will still continue the rest of the test (after failing a CHECK_VAL)
> but
> >> will immediately print out the error.
> >
> > Setting "kernel oplocks = yes" in make test on Linux:
> > Without your patch I for example get
> >
> > TEST BATCH10 FAILED! - torture/raw/oplock.c:964: wrong value for
> break_info.fnum got 0x0 - should be 0x106c
> >
> > With your patch:
> >
> > (torture/raw/oplock.c:963): wrong value for break_info.count got 0x0
> - should be 0x1
> > (torture/raw/oplock.c:964): wrong value for break_info.fnum got 0x0 -
> should be 0x109e
> > ERROR IN TEST BATCH10! - Unknown error/failure
> >
> > I don't know how to solve this Unknown error/failure thing.
> > The "real" error message should have been "Hey, you did not
> > send an oplock break".
> >
> > Not applying directly, I'm not sure which alternative is the
> > better one.
> 
> I think the 2nd is better as the first error isn't hidden...
> 
> metze
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFGpxOhm70gjA5TCD8RAjJGAKCrQUWPLP1HatciUSOtL1O66ZYX+wCffhOx
> kMANkPtnpqRov5SG180BhUs=
> =lKUD
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----